
Jean_Poutine
Member-
Posts
120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Jean_Poutine
-
Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation
Jean_Poutine replied to jdobbin's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
I see, so it's the people that don't get involved in such stupidity that are responsible? And when you have self-inflicted health problems, they're also responsible for sharing the cost of health care. -
Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation
Jean_Poutine replied to jdobbin's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
And your answer is what, more social workers because the criminals are actually victims? -
Implications of Prorogation
Jean_Poutine replied to PoliticalTalk's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Interesting way of framing the question. She wasn't wrong. The people gave the Conservatives a large minority with virtually the same percentage of the vote that Chretien won a majority with in 1997. In 1926, Governor General Lord Byng gave power to the opposition, but it backfired in the election that followed when King argued that Byng had interfered in Canadian politics and came back with a majority. Of course, the vote of confidence was all about trying to gain power without an election. The past, and common sense, shows that this course of action is clearly a mistake and it would be even more so with the Bloc in the mix. However, the country just went through an election and nobody wanted another one -- especially the Liberals. It would have been amusing to see how the opposition would react if there was a no confidence vote and an election called -- careful what you wish for. However, neither of these options were really desirable. Once Parliament was prorogued, the Conservatives got down to business with the budget, and Liberals distanced themselves from the coalition. In the end, the GG was able to avoid the two undesirable options. -
Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation
Jean_Poutine replied to jdobbin's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Lock'em up and throw away the key. The simple truth is that the world will be a better place without these idiots around. -
Is Canada Falling Short on Trade With China?
Jean_Poutine replied to Progressive Tory's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Another post blaming the Canadian government for global economic circumstance.... Perhaps, you think it's better to do nothing, and, for example, lose Canada's share of the auto manufacturing market -- and about 10% of GDP in the process. The problem did not start in Canada; therefore, the Canadian government -- be it Conservative or Liberal -- is not responsible for it, but it is responsible for getting Canada through the difficult time. And no, the problem isn't so-called reckless spending before the economic downturn. I don't call paying nearly $40 billion on debt reckless spending. -
Is Canada Falling Short on Trade With China?
Jean_Poutine replied to Progressive Tory's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Nope, China is falling short on its trade. In 2007, the US imported $321.5 billion worth of Chinese exports while only $65.2 billion worth of US exports went to China. With all the other economic problems, do you want that kind of trade deficit, too? Canada's population is tiny compared to China, yet Canada took in $248.9 billion worth of US exports while the US took in $313.1 billion worth of Canadian exports in the same year. Generally, Canada/US trade is pretty much balanced, but Canada has a surplus when the price of oil is up. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statis...op/top0712.html I'm sure China would be interested in exporting more goods to Canada and importing Canadian resources, but that's probably the extent of it. And that leads to another question, do you want Canadian exports to be mainly resources? Personally I'd rather see Canadian energy resources used to drive the North American economy until cleaner sources of energy can be developed on a scale that makes them practical to use. Meanwhile, without being heavily in debt to China or reliant with regards to trade, Canada can speak freely on human rights issues. -
Tory Fund raising sets new record High!
Jean_Poutine replied to Mr.Canada's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Yet Michael Ignatieff's web site uses the nickname Iggy. The video section is called "Iggy Tube". Just because someone uses a nickname doesn't mean that they're being derogatory. -
Yeah yeah, anyone that disagrees with you is extreme.... America is still a right of center country -- certainly right of Canadian politics. Obama got to where he is through his ability to talk -- something that he's better at than Iggy. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it's not the best way to show leadership. You're so certain that people will want a return to Liberal arrogance and sense of entitlement? Maybe Harper governs the way he does because proportionally, the Conservatives do have the most say. They have more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined. Given that they only need a dozen votes from the opposition, explain why you think the opposition should have influence that's out of proportion with that. In 1997, Chretien won a majority government with 38.5% of the vote, and in 2008, the Conservatives got 37.63% of the vote. So, less than 1% difference between a Liberal majority and a Conservative minority, yet it's ok for Chretien to do what he wanted with a low share of the vote, but Harper should cave in to every demand that the opposition has. Next, we are constantly told that the opposition is a "62% majority". First off, if you add up the share of votes for everyone other than the Conservatives that got elected, the total is 55.06%. Of course, the Green party is tossed in to inflate the numbers, but they don't have anyone elected, and it's kinda hard to be part of the opposition when you're not in Parliament. Meanwhile, if we tally up the share of votes for everyone other than Liberal that got elected in 1997, the total is 61.5%. It's ok when your guy is in office, but not when someone else is. That's called hypocrisy. Like the stupid comments about Americans that came out of Chretien's Liberal government? I see Conservatives speaking all the time. Baird can be quite vocal, and I see him speaking to the media. When you only see what you want to see, I guess it's not to difficult.
-
How the Conservatives will win their majority
Jean_Poutine replied to Barts's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Red Tories are confused Liberals. -
I said a while ago that I think Layton's acting like an idiot and he'll pay a price for it. It's simply stating the obvious really, but if you want proof, look at this Toronto Star article and the reactions to it: http://www.thestar.com/article/573610 There are 129 comments about it, and almost all are against what Layton is doing. Moreover, the vast majority of the votes on comments are in agreement with comments made against Layton or in disagreement with comments supporting the NDP/coalition. The Toronto Star is hardly conservative, and it's his home town paper. Me thinks that if Layton keeps going down this path, he'll be looking for a new job after the next election.
-
Has Barack Obama rendered Harper extinct?
Jean_Poutine replied to Barts's topic in Canada / United States Relations
It's funny, Obama and Harper have quite a bit of common interest, yet people on the left like to act like Obama is a saint and Harper is the devil. Stop me if this sounds familiar: "families are tightening their belts, and so should washington." -- Barack Obama (talking about freezing pay for staff) source: CBC National Where have I heard something like that before? Wait, I know: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end." -- Barack Obama (Inauguration Speech) I've heard something like this before too. *scratches chin* Ah, here we go: And don't forget that Obama wants to expand the war in Afghanistan that people on the left have constantly criticized Harper for -- even though it was Paul Martin that sent Canadian troops to the most dangerous part of the country. Harper has consistently said he wants better relations with the US since before he became Prime Minister, and now that the US has a president that you like so much, you ought not to complain. -
The Anti-Immigration Sentiment
Jean_Poutine replied to trooper's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind." -- John Diefenbaker I'll say what I think, and stand for what I think right, and I really don't give a damn about people that say that I can't. As for immigration, I saw a show on PBS about the recovery of the Grizzly bear population in which one man said, "It's easy to be for Grizzly recovery when you live in Fort Lauderdale, but when the Grizzly is on your porch, it's a challenge." I think that line can be applied to a lot of arguments that people make. It's easy to be for something when it doesn't effect you directly. If you live out in a rural area, immigration doesn't really effect you, but if you live in a city where the population has increased by 25% or more in 5 years, it's a different story. It's a different story when most of the new comers barely speak english. It's a different story when infrastructure doesn't keep up with the population growth. It's a different story when you have people on the road that don't seem to know what traffic laws are. It's also a different story when they bring beliefs that aren't compatible with life in Canada. Take for example Shariah law. In countries that use Shariah law, women can be stoned to death for having the audacity to want to choose their own husband. I once watched a documentary in which a Muslim man defended the record on womens rights in the Muslim world by saying that they treat them better than we do. He argued that in the west, we dress women like whores. I thought, this epitomized the problem. In the west, women are free to live their lives as they choose -- regardless of whether or not someone else disagrees with it. If a woman chooses to dress in a way he does not approve of, it's HER choice NOT someone elses. So does this mean that we should not accept immigrants from such countries? We cannot generalize of course. When Muslims pushed for Shariah law in Ontario, some of the most vocal critics that spoke against it were women that moved here from Iran to get away from it. We should welcome those people, but at the same time we should also be cautious about those that seek to export such problems to Canada, and herein lies the problem. How does the board of immigration determine what a person's intent is? Do they believe that their religion trumps our laws? Do they have the same respect for an individuals rights that we do? The answers to such questions are fundamental if you want to know whether or not an individual will fit into our society. With regards to the argument that we need immigrants to fix a shortage of skilled workers, I'm not convinced. Why is it that as soon as there's a problem, some neglect to look closer to home for the solution first? While there is a shortage of skilled workers in some areas, there's also a growing number of unemployed in this country already. Why not train them to do the sort of work for which there is a shortage and kill two birds with one stone? Likewise with the argument that we need immigrants for population growth. Anyone stop to ask themselves why population growth is so low? The US doesn't have the same problem with population growth. Why is that? Could it be that taxes, cost of living, etc makes it harder to raise a family? Shouldn't the first step towards fixing a problem be to determine what the cause is? -
Top Liberal denies Coalition exists!
Jean_Poutine replied to Mr.Canada's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Second sentence in the article that the link leads to: Look familiar? First thing I found with a google search: Source: Canadian Jewish News -
Conservatives to table $40 billion deficit: CTV
Jean_Poutine replied to jdobbin's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
The Conservatives cut taxes and paid down a substantial amount of the debt, and it's only now that we're going into the red. Paul Martin believed in having a small contingency fund of about $3 billion to ensure a balanced budget each year. However, does anyone really believe that that would be sufficient to deal with the current global economic crisis? That wouldn't even cover the auto sector. Given the severity of the problem, we would be in the red regardless. Quebec should not receive special treatment, but I do agree with increased spending on the military. -
Harper's New Budget - Is it the Coalition Killer?!
Jean_Poutine replied to tamtam10's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
According to CBC election results, if you add up the percentage of the vote for all opposition parties, including independents, they have 55.06%. So first of all, your math is off. Second, in 1997, Chretien got a majority with 38.5% of the vote -- just 0.9% more than what Harper got in the last election -- even though the opposition had 59.9% of the vote. Put the Liberals and NDP together and you get a combined total of 114 seats vs. 143 Conservative seats. The two parties together are short 29 seats to match what one party has. I can play games with numbers too. I don't know about you, but I really don't care about the Bloc. Their supporters care more about their province than the country as a whole. They represent a region not a country. However, if you insist on using the Bloc to inflate your numbers, at least be honest about it and call your coalition what it IS: a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition. You can't have it both ways by including the Bloc when it's convenient for you and leaving them out when it's not. -
Harper's New Budget - Is it the Coalition Killer?!
Jean_Poutine replied to tamtam10's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
You ought to do your homework first. Sure, Meighen took power from King's minority government, but Meighen's government fell soon after, and in the following election, King won a majority. I'm not sure that's the kind of example the Liberals want to follow, but hey, if they want to give Harper a majority, I'm cool with it. Australia isn't relevant to Canadian politics, nor are other countries. This is Canada not another country. -
Harper's New Budget - Is it the Coalition Killer?!
Jean_Poutine replied to tamtam10's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Can the GG in good conscience allow parties that neither raise their own money effectively (one being a separatist party) nor win an election take power from one that does? How exactly would that build confidence? It's not a Liberal/NDP coalition. The Liberals and NDP combined have less seats than the Conservatives. Therefore, let's call it what it IS shall we? It's a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition. Of course, the Bloc will be bought off with tax money from people that don't support the coalition. Always find a way to make someone else pay for the agenda eh? If they agree with it, there's no reason to vote against it. The words coalition and stability don't belong in the same sentence. Stop regurgitating what Stephen Dion said and think for yourself. Always trying to pin everything on Harper. Minority governments can be unstable by nature, and Harper's minority government has been one of the longest in history. It is the fact that we have four parties that makes it difficult to get a majority. Although, despite that, the Conservatives aren't that far off from a majority.Sure, a coalition may make up a majority of seats, but that doesn't mean they're on the same page -- unless you think the Liberals and the Bloc hold the same values. As for regional divisiveness, I would argue that it's the Liberals belief in centralized government that caused it more than anything. It was around long before Harper took office. It was when Jean Chretien was Prime Minister that Quebec almost separated, and just ask Albertans what they think of Trudeau. No, I do not agree. Using tax dollars to subsidize political parties is not the same thing as raising money. If they were more effective in raising money, they'd be less dependent on subsidies and thus less vulnerable. I ask you, why is it that they have such a hard time raising money for their cause if it's so popular? I get it, you don't support the guy in office, and that's fine. I lived through three Chretien majority governments, and thus I'm sure you can survive Harper minority governments.It's a mistake to count Harper out. I remind you that people didn't think he was electable before he won the first time, and now he's won twice and gained seats. Maybe if Ignatieff spent more time in Canada practicing what he's been preaching in other countries rather than jumping in at the last minute and thinking he can just jump into the roll, he'd have more opportunities. I don't dislike the guy, but I do think he comes across as a bit arrogant at times. -
Conservatives to table $40 billion deficit: CTV
Jean_Poutine replied to jdobbin's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Yep, if military spending seems painful now, it's because of the deficit in military equipment that previous governments created by gutting/neglecting the military. If we kept the military budget at a reasonable level, they'd be able to replace aging equipment gradually as required instead of trying to keep a bunch of aging equipment running and then trying to replace it all at once. The politically popular thing to do is to take money from the military to pay for other things, but that's really just kicking the can down the road. Well, we're pretty much at the end of the road and have to deal with it. The Toronto Star has done a pretty good job of demonizing Harper over military spending. Linda McQuaig once wrote about how Harper is increasing the military budget by 2% per year, which basically keeps up with inflation, and called it, "Canada's military-industrial complex". I just about fell off my chair laughing when I first read that. Even Pierre Trudeau kept military spending above 2% of GDP, and we all know how much praise he gets from Liberals. Yet When Harper raises the budget slightly from Chretien's 1.1% of GDP and pledges to restore the budget to 2% GDP gradually, he's called a war monger or a Bush puppet.... By the way, Obama accepted an invitation from Harper to Canada recently. This shows that Harper is interested in good relations with the US and not just Bush - as the left has tried to claim at every opportunity. Soon Bush will be out of office and Obama is popular in Canada. It'll be interesting to see how people try to spin this. Maybe Harper will be able to relax about getting along with a US president without being seen as a puppet. -
Ignatieff calls for tax cuts, changes to EI
Jean_Poutine replied to jdobbin's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Perhaps you're referring to cutting subsidies to political parties in the economic statement? That'd deal a blow to the Bloc and how is that a bad thing? Why should Canadian tax dollars go to a separatist party? As for the Liberals and NDP, why can't their supporters put their money where their mouths are? Obama didn't depend on subsidies to get elected. If the Liberals truly have so much support, they should have no problem raising money. Having things in the budget that you do not agree with does not equate to acting like a horses ass. It's about representing the interests of other people -- not just you. As I've said in another post, it isn't just a minority government when it's convenient for you. Given the oppositions ability to vote down the budget, they must also wear the $40 billion deficit -- should it pass. You can't have it both ways. -
Conservatives to table $40 billion deficit: CTV
Jean_Poutine replied to jdobbin's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Actually, it's more like two. The Conservatives paid down nearly $40 billion on the debt since they were elected. -
Conservatives to table $40 billion deficit: CTV
Jean_Poutine replied to jdobbin's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Yep, it will be, but it'll also be hard to pin a global problem on Harper. He's not responsible for the global economic situation, and don't forget that this spending is what the opposition was crying for. The opposition won't let us forget that it's a minority government when it's convenient for them. Well, I remind you that it's a minority government, even though it's not convenient for you at this time. -
And if Harper pushed more for an elected Senate instead, you'd probably be complaining about that. If Harper wanted to appoint senators instead of having an elected senate, why wait so long to do it? I'm agnostic and I support the Conservatives. The problem with the Liberals is that I have an image burned into my mind of more than a decade of Chrétien coronations, and I have little interest in reliving it. The NDP is too far left and the Bloc is irrelevant. The Conservatives aren't perfect, but they're the best choice.
-
Ignatieff calls for tax cuts, changes to EI
Jean_Poutine replied to jdobbin's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
You are one confused Tory. -
Ignatieff calls for tax cuts, changes to EI
Jean_Poutine replied to jdobbin's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Good. I look forward to seeing how he makes his case to the people in the next election. That's an interesting way of putting it. The Conservatives gained seats and the Liberals got their butts kicked. The string of minority governments is owed more to the fact that Quebec loves to send separatist politicians to Ottawa while sucking up tax dollars from Ontario and Alberta. Fortunately, more ridings are being added so that the Bloc will be less relevant. When the opposition is only interested in taking power that they couldn't earn in election, I'd say proroguing was probably for the best. Personally, I'd rather see another election. Funny thing is that you won't see a single supporter of the coalition say they support another election because they know that there will likely be a price to pay in an election because of the coalition thing. We can argue about how Parliament functions, but if the majority of Canadians support a coalition, there's nothing to fear from another election, and if they don't, the coalition parties will suffer the consequences of their actions when there is another election. See, it's not just Harper that can't avoid the inevitable. Given that it's not a question of if but when there's another election, I say just bring it on now and confirm the will of the people. However, I suspect that Iggy is smart enough to figure this out, and will try to work with the Conservatives for now. That would give the Liberals both time to raise money and to make a stronger case, but more importantly, it's in the interest of the country that they try to get something done, and I'm sure people will remember those that didn't make the effort, which is why I think Layton is making an ass out of himself. The Conservatives said that they'll fight the coalition with all legal means available, and proroguing is one of them.